This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-07-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to what is implied by the title of this case, the instant appeal merely affects Camat and not Dulay since the subject of this appeal is the October 9, 2002 Joint Decision of the trial court wherein only Camat was convicted. Moreover, in the Appellants' Brief, the relief prayed for was the reversal of only the October 9, 2002 Joint Decision and there was no reference to the December 6, 2000 Decision, containing Dulay's conviction. This is not surprising considering that the case involving Dulay was already resolved with finality by this Court in a Resolution dated October 11, 2007 in G.R. No. 174775, entitled People of the Philippines v. Mamerto Dulay.[4] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The credibility of SPO4 Genoguin is not adversely affected by his inability to immediately identify the ownership of the jewelry found near the dead body of the victim despite his testimony that he saw the appellant wearing the same jewelry on previous occasions. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable leading people to act differently.[42] There is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a startling or frightful occurrence.[43] SPO4 Genoguin, despite being a policeman since 1977,[44] was affected by the gruesome crime. His years in the police service did not prepare him to witness the lifeless body of a 10-year old girl who had been brutally raped and murdered. | |||||
|
2009-06-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In another case,[72] this Court ruled that, the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[73] In the said case, it was established that Elmer and Marcelina Hidalgo died of, and Pedro Hidalgo sustained, gunshot wounds. The ballistic examination of the slugs recovered from the place of the incident showed that they were fired from a .30 carbine rifle and a .38 caliber firearm. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant therein as one of those who were holding a long firearm. It was also established that the same appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. Hence, this Court ruled that the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the use of unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals however modified the awards for moral damages and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals reduced the trial court's award of moral damages from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. We agree with this change, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[19] As held by the Court of Appeals, moral damages are awarded in cases of violent deaths even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs, because the violent and sudden death of a loved one invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[20] | |||||